The Rhode Island Ethics Commission has determined that an employee from a nonprofit corporation, which has an ongoing contract with the town of Charlestown to deliver essential emergency medical services, is debarred from accepting the role of emergency management director within the town due to conflict of interest regulations illuminated in the Code of Ethics.
“The Petitioner has formally sought an advisory opinion to clarify whether the Code of Ethics prohibits acceptance of the Emergency Management director position for the Town of Charlestown, a role appointed at the municipal level. This inquiry arises from the fact that the Petitioner is currently employed as chief of Charlestown Ambulance-Rescue Service, a nonprofit entity that provides emergency medical assistance under a contract with the town, and has plans to continue with this private employment role.”
“The Rhode Island Ethics Commission opines that the Code of Ethics indeed prevents the Petitioner from taking up the Emergency Management director position in light of his ongoing private employment as chief of Charlestown Ambulance-Rescue Service, which is bound by contract to provide vital emergency services to the town.”
“Should the Petitioner accept the position of Emergency Management director—even in a part-time or contractual capacity—he would be classified as a municipal appointed official according to the definitions provided in the Code of Ethics. His dual roles would pose a dilemma, particularly as his team, CARS, would be expected to respond to emergencies within the town. However, the Petitioner has expressed uncertainty about how the emergency management plan he would lead as director would strategically involve CARS, creating ambiguity in assessing how his public duties could impact his private employer financially.”
“Despite the Petitioner’s assertion that he would not evaluate the performance of CARS under the relevant contract, it is implausible to believe that he could be entirely excluded from such evaluations by the town administrator or the council when making determinations regarding the performance of the service.”
“The Petitioner contends that the monthly report he is responsible for producing for the town council would not also be shared with the Emergency Management director; however, it is reasonable to assume that the report from CARS would eventually reach the EM director through other town officials to facilitate the execution of his public responsibilities. The expectation that the EM director would host the chief of CARS at monthly meetings adds to the conflict, since the Petitioner would need to manage these meetings in his official capacity while also being involved in them as a private citizen.”
“The Petitioner has proposed to recuse himself from participating in these meetings either in a public or private capacity, which ultimately offers little assurance to the Ethics Commission that he could effectively fulfill both responsibilities without causing confusion for meeting attendees and compromising his impartiality regarding public duties.”
“In contrast to the petitioners from prior advisory opinions who faced no significant overlap between their public service and private endeavors, the current Petitioner’s circumstances would lead to a substantial conflict of interest should he take on the EM director position. Should he accept this appointment while retaining his role at CARS, the interconnection between his public obligations and private employment would drastically impede his ability to evaluate situations with impartiality concerning any potential conflicts that may arise.”
“The dual role of serving as both EM director overseeing emergencies and as chief of a service contract provider like CARS opens the door to substantial ethical concerns. The Petitioner’s proposals to recuse himself from essential functions within both roles merely underline the intrinsic conflicts that exist, raising significant doubts about his ability to present unbiased counsel to the town’s administrator and council. It is nearly inconceivable for the Petitioner to offer sound guidance regarding emergencies as chief of CARS while simultaneously reporting in his capacity as EM director without compromising the independence expected of a public official.”
“In summary, after weighing the Petitioner’s claims, the applicable ethics guidelines, and alignments with past advisory opinions, the Ethics Commission firmly concludes that the Code of Ethics prohibits the acceptance of the Emergency Management director role by the Petitioner for the Town of Charlestown.”
Re: Kettle, Andrew D. (Lawyers Weekly No. 74-034-24) (Advisory Opinion No. 2024-34) (Oct. 29, 2024).
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.
**Interview with Mark Thompson, Legal Analyst for the Rhode Island Ethics Commission**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Mark. This recent ruling regarding the Petitioner’s eligibility for the Emergency Management Director position in Charlestown has garnered quite a bit of attention. Can you summarize the Ethics Commission’s decision?
**Mark Thompson:** Absolutely. The Rhode Island Ethics Commission concluded that the Petitioner, who is currently the chief of Charlestown Ambulance-Rescue Service (CARS), is prohibited from accepting the role of Emergency Management Director due to conflict of interest concerns set out in the Code of Ethics. Essentially, holding both positions would create potential conflicts, as his responsibilities to both the town and his private employer could collide.
**Interviewer:** What were some of the primary concerns that led to this decision?
**Mark Thompson:** One of the main concerns was the Petitioner’s ongoing employment with CARS, which is contracted to provide emergency services to the town. If he were to take on the role of Emergency Management Director, it raises questions about how he could objectively manage the emergency services when his own employer would be expected to respond to the same emergencies. The Ethics Commission pointed out that even with his intention to recuse himself from evaluations or meetings, the lines between public duty and private employment would be blurred.
**Interviewer:** The Petitioner expressed uncertainty about how the emergency management plan would involve CARS. Why was this seen as problematic?
**Mark Thompson:** That uncertainty was a red flag for the Ethics Commission. Given that part of the Emergency Management Director’s role involves coordinating responses to emergencies, any ambiguity about how CARS would fit into that strategy raises ethical questions. How can someone effectively manage public safety operations if their private role creates potential biases?
**Interviewer:** There’s mention of a monthly report that the Petitioner produces for the town council. How does that play into the conflict?
**Mark Thompson:** That’s another significant point. While the Petitioner asserts that his reports wouldn’t be shared with the Emergency Management Director, it’s highly likely that information would flow through other channels. The Commission believes it’s reasonable to assume that the director would eventually receive insights on CARS operations, leading to inevitable overlaps in responsibilities and information sharing which could further complicate impartiality.
**Interviewer:** How does the Ethics Commission suggest handling conflicts of this nature in the future?
**Mark Thompson:** The Commission generally advises that individuals in positions where a potential conflict arises should either refrain from taking on additional roles or develop comprehensive plans to separate their duties clearly. In this situation, a clear divide between public and private responsibilities is essential to maintain trust and avoid any perception of impropriety.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Mark, for your insights on this important matter.
**Mark Thompson:** Thank you for having me. It’s crucial for public officials to navigate these ethical boundaries carefully to maintain public trust.
